linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "scripts/coccinelle: Find PTR

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20251029102630.2a9bd6e7@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 10:26:30 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
Cc: Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>, Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Nicolas
 Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>, Alexei Lazar <alazar@...dia.com>, Simon
 Horman <horms@...nel.org>, cocci@...ia.fr, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "scripts/coccinelle: Find PTR_ERR() to %pe
 candidates"

On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 15:04:36 +0100 (CET) Julia Lawall wrote:
> > The test by no means mandates authors to use %pe, as the output says:
> > WARNING: Consider using %pe to print PTR_ERR()
> >
> > "Consider" :).
> >
> > I would consider it best practice to use it, and a few drivers were
> > converted thanks to this test.
> >
> > If the issue is with automatic build bots, then maybe this test should
> > be excluded from them, rather than deleted?  
> 
> This is easy to do.  Or I can discard them when they come to me for
> approval.

FWIW I'd also prefer for the script to say in the tree.
Some kind of opt-out mechanism per subsystem would be ideal, 
and presumably belongs in the bots themselves. We maintain 
a list of regexp's in netdev CI to silence cocci checks we 
don't find worth complaining about. But the %pe check so far 
have not been too bad. 

And we have a policy against semi-automated patches which "clean up"
cocci or checkpatch warnings. Something we may want to adopt more
widely.